C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> Karl Fogel wrote:
>> "C. Michael Pilato" <cmpilato_at_collab.net> writes:
>>> I was expect, actually, that it doesn't. I'm guessing that 'svn switch
>>> -rBASE' will turn BASE into a revision number based on the evaluation of the
>>> revision at which the TARGET sits, and then do a whole-revision update to
>>> that revision (whatever it may be). That's not quite the same operation as
>>> an update-less URL tweak. And maybe the answer to that is, "Just use
>>> --relocate."
>> If we apply Vlad's patch, then we want to formally obsolete the
>> '--relocate' option, I think. We certainly don't want to keep it but
>> have it mean "Just like switch, but don't update anything."
>>
>> No one -- not even us -- would ever be able to keep that straight. It
>> would be a meaning entirely unrelated to the name of the option. We
>> have enough troubles with people misunderstanding what the '--relocate'
>> option is for already; let's not make the problem even worse.
>
> I agree, but deprecating functionality (at least, this functionality) as
> well is a non-starter. We need a way to prevent the switch (which was
> originally defined to be a sort of update) from doing an update. A new
> option (such as --no-update) would be the obvious solution there.
I was thinking of introducing a new subcommand ("svn relocate") that does the
same thing as switch --relocate does now.
A switch that only rewrites URL's without updating wouldn't be correct if there
are changes between the source and target paths, would it? You'd end up with an
out of sync working copy.
--
Vlad
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-08-28 08:29:38 CEST